Some people might realise that the jacket of the man who is running on a treadmill will move differently to the jacket of a woman who is standing still.

The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth like a pendulum even though the jogging would cause it to go up. Notice how the corners of the woman astronaut's jacket stand straight out--they don't hang. There's no identifiable force making the corner of Collins' jacket stay down except for gravity.I know they had the technology to get into low earth orbit then but the footage shows they were in gravity. Evdidently they faked some of the footage of their being halfway to the moon.

There's other evidence of faked zero-gravity footage.

Click on this link below and go down about a third of the way until you see this.

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm(excerpt)---------------------------------------------------------APOLLO 9: Dave scott performs Extra Vehicular Activities LAVA # : LV-1998-00030.movThe astronaut is unusually flexible compared to today's shuttle astronauts on EVAs; the Apollo suit does not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits. The experimental thermal samples flutter and follow non-linear curved paths, as if under the influence of or affected by atmospheric drag and turbulence. ---------------------------------------------------------

This clip may have been filmed on earth. Maybe they were trying to save money.

There's lot's of other footage that proves it was a hoax such as this.

The hoax is pretty well proven; it's just interesting to see how they did all the details.

"The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth like a pendulum even though the jogging would cause it to go up. "Oh goody! from conspiracy theory to anti gravity effect of jogging.Jogging causes the whole body to move back and to. The bloke's jacket is attached to him so it follows his movements.Where's the conspiracy? His jacket is conspiring with his torso?

Can anyone give an explanation why the cross hairs from the camera are located behind objects in NASA's photographs?

Personally, I cannot think of any possible explanation other than the photographs were edited to include the objects as an afterthought.

What about the obvious other light sources casting shadows and illuminating objects and astronauts when they should have been silhouetted by the light from the sun?

Again IMO the only explanation other than they took the film crew to the moon with them is that the photographs were taken with multiple light sources. One of these light sources can be clearly seen in the visor of the astronaut. One could argue that this light was in fact the sun but this would make nonsense of the direction of the shadows.

The same landscape is used in several locations supposed to be miles apart, yet are a perfect match when superimposed over each other.

Either the script was wrong during the editing, or the location was identical

Why was there no blast crater and no blast dust settled on the feet of the landing craft?

for there not to have been a crater or blast dust on a very dusty surface shown clearly as the astronauts moved around, they would either have to have cleared the dust off and filled in the crater, or there was no pressure from the craft to affect a cause.

Why is there no exhaust evidence on take off from the moons surface? Either the craft was operating a giant spring to launch itself, or it was producing some antigravity force that does not disrupt the dusty surface of the lunar landscape.

Is it possible that the United States Government could mislead the whole of the country and the majority of the world that were capable of receiving television and radio at the time, into believing something that simply was not true?

This one is perhaps the easiest to explain. The Allied Iraq invasion was perpetrated after the President of The United States went on the record and publicly announced that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. He was backed up by Prime Minister Tony Blair, and supported by the majority of his senators and our Members of Parliament. We were also told that Sadam was amassing a huge army again, even though Sadam Denied all allegations and had even allowed UN inspectors to search for any alleged weapons. For the record. None where found!

Mass graves were mentioned. Could these have been from the first bush Senior onslaught, which I believe was justified given the unprovoked attack on Kuwait.

After we began watching what unfolded, the World looked on and saw that Sadam did not even have an air force, his armoured tanks were virtually non existent and his remaining army were disillusioned and terrified by the onslaught of two of the worlds greatest military powers unleashing their own High tech weapons of mass destruction on predominantly unarmed civilian men women and children on the Streets of Baghdad. While the media supported the whole unfolding campaign. So yes it is highly plausible that the United States Of America and Great Britain can and frequently do mislead the majority of people!

Mr Bush didn't have to convince anyone about the WMD. He ordered the war because he wanted to (or rather the military did).A lot of us here in the UK didnt't and don't accept that the war was (or is) just. Many of us knew that the search for WMD was still going on when the US (and the 51st state) unilatterally and unlawfully started a war. We were never asked about it because most of us would have said "no".So there's no real evidence that messers Bush and Blair fooled anyone much. On the other hand it's very rare to vote out a head of state during a war.

Even if you say that, at the time, a majority of the population thought that Saddam had WMD, just a short while later they stopped believing this when, for example, it emerged that part of the evidence was some student's homework.A goverment could fool the people- but not for long. Thruth will out. If the moon landings were fake someone would have blabbed by now. They have not. To me that's one of the more convincing bits of evidence.

(BTW, please look at earlier posts in this thread and at the sites cited for answers to the questions about shadows, cross hairs etc.)

Yep....what he said was 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'...when he should have said...'one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind'......I mean tcch!! tcch!!......it's not as if he was under any pressure or anything !!!!!

Quote

You think they couldn’t fake a sky full off stars. If they wanted to fake a moon landing and thought that they needed stars in the sky that would have been one of the easiest part of the scam to pull off. However if you could see stars then it would be fake.

With all of the budding astronomers way back in the 1960's they would have had to have been pretty damned accurate painting stars on the photograph as this would have provided concrete evidence one way or another. Much better to leave the stars out! One insignificant error in star position would have thrown the whole programme into orbit.

It was argued that a reflector was in place on the moon so we had to have been there. Another argument was that Russians were listening in. Could a transmitter have been placed on the lunar surface in an unmanned landing to send transmissions back to Earth? I believe this is a possibility. Why would the Russians have built listening devices to hear transmissions from the Lunar Surface?

Quote

Do you really think all of those at mission control, plus the Astronauts, ground crew...and not to mention the wives could have kept silent all those years?

Hell yeah, if people you know around you have been talking and suddenly met an untimely end, one might think it is not wise to put ones own life in danger.

RE: Ohm’s analysis: Can we be sure the rocks were from the lunar surface. Meteors are found in many of the world’s deserts and have unknown origins.

Quote

Conspiracy in the Scientific Community? On a Worldwide scale?You might be able to gag the military and make politicians do what the government says but gagging all the Scientists, technicians and engineers in Nasa and around the work?

One only has to look at the recent drug cartel frauds to see that a cover up in the scientific community is not even improbable, but highly plausible. Take Rosalind’s post on the double helix, and the scientist that advocated aspirin as a cure for cancer, How on earth did thalidomide get through the controls? If you think scientists are without fault then it is you that is being foolish.

lyner

It's amazing that the probability of someone believing in this conspiracy seems to be inversely proportional to their knowledge of basic Science and Engineering. Of all the possible conspiracy theories that there have ever been, this is the most loony. Even just the evidence of amateur and professional radio astronomers about where and when they managed to get radio signals from the mission tells you that the craft couldn't have been in low Earth orbit or on the ground. This was a highly public affair. Vast amounts of information were available and have always been. Unlike in many other coverups, there were legions of both disinterested and hostile observers, many of them being very well informed. It's hard to know where to start in debunking the objectors.Moderately high speed dust would go miles if it were disturbed. If you land a hard piece of ground you wouldn't expect a 'crater' and the shape of a crater in dust would be nothing like what you'd expect on Earth. If you take many photographs with hard shadows you will see that they are by no means parallel because of the distortions introduced even with a standard lens - it's all to do with 'projections'. Shadows appear to spread out, curve and even point inwards because not all surfaces are horizontal, parallel or flat.How would you expect to get the stars (Very dim) exposed on film without seriously over exposing the nearby objects (full sunlight with not a hint of cloud)? For pictures of the sky, they would have had to land near the terminator and walk to where it was dark or point directly into the sky, away from the Sun, to avoid serious flare.

All the other failed coverups which have been quoted have actually been rumbled (that's how we know of them) despite involving relatively few perpetrators / observers.

Is there any record of a 'whistle blower' being assassinated / committing suicide? That's one possible sign of a really serious coverup but I haven't heard of it. I get the feeling that NASA are pretty sure of their bona fides.

Two: Assuming that NASA did hoax the video, there is no way that they would have forgotten to take the wind into account. They would have filmed it in a location where there was no wind, such as a well-sealed building. Any institution of people intelligent enough to build rocket ships and hoax a Moon landing would realize that a flag blowing in the wind would blow their cover. If the idea of wind slipped their mind, then how could they cover up such a hoax for so long without slipping up and letting it get out?

Quote

Of all the possible conspiracy theories that there have ever been, this is the most loony

I wouldn't say that. The most bizarre one I can think of is the one embraced by the Flat Earth Society, which proposes that the Earth really is flat but that a gigantic conspiracy perpetuated by an unseen one-world government is covering it up by making people believe that it is round. They seriously believe that, too. I've talked with them.

Anyone saying things like "One only has to look at the recent drug cartel frauds to see that a cover up in the scientific community is not even improbable, but highly plausible."

has missed the point.

Those frauds got found out.

Decades after the moon landings there has been no real evidence of their falshood. Nobody has come forward and said "OK it's a fair cop- we faked them" It would have been perfectly possible to fake them (though I'm not sure how they persuaded the Russians to play along) but, by now the holes in the story would have shown up. Notwithstanding the fact that some people don't understand photography, no holes have been found.

lyner

I agree. We could have expected at least one deathbed confession or some crazed outbreak from a minion who had been suppressed by 'the conspiracy' all his life and decided to risk assassination in order to put us all right.

btw, which is the lie? Was it that they did land or that they didn't land?

Anyone saying things like "One only has to look at the recent drug cartel frauds to see that a cover up in the scientific community is not even improbable, but highly plausible."

has missed the point.

Those frauds got found out.

Decades after the moon landings there has been no real evidence of their falshood. Nobody has come forward and said "OK it's a fair cop- we faked them" It would have been perfectly possible to fake them (though I'm not sure how they persuaded the Russians to play along) but, by now the holes in the story would have shown up. Notwithstanding the fact that some people don't understand photography, no holes have been found.

They lost me when they deemed it a hoax because it didn't resemble Star Trek or some other made-for-television space program. Hollywood already faked it and had the resources they needed to convince us it was real.

I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon. He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon. Does anyone know why that is?

Quite clearly it´s because they faked the video. and could´nt add in the stars as it would have been 1. too dificult and 2. Allowed people who understood astrology to prove it was fake.

The reason we dont see stars on the earth during the day is because we have an atmosphere. The moon doesn´t have an atmosphere, some may contend it has a small one, either way the atmosphere doesnt glow a bright colour during the daytime and block out the stars; like the earths does!

Two: Assuming that NASA did hoax the video, there is no way that they would have forgotten to take the wind into account. They would have filmed it in a location where there was no wind, such as a well-sealed building. Any institution of people intelligent enough to build rocket ships and hoax a Moon landing would realize that a flag blowing in the wind would blow their cover. If the idea of wind slipped their mind, then how could they cover up such a hoax for so long without slipping up and letting it get out?

You're explaining the flag being planted on Apollo 11 and the clip I posted was from Apollo 15.

(2 minute 35 second mark)

In this clip the flag had stopped moving when the astronaut walked by it. Tell us what you think of this particular clip.

"Tell us what you think of this particular clip"I think the comments posted below it talking about static, or ground transmitted vibration look eminently reasonable.Why would NASA have been dumb enough to publish it if it were a threat to the conspiracy they sought to maintain?

Logged

lyner

It's strange that the majority of those who seem to be 'pro conspiracy theory' are also 'against established Science'.Is this just 'attention-seeking' bahaviour, I wonder? The stronger the evidence, the more vociferous is the objection.Imagine basing a serious scientific theory on clips from Utube and expecting it to be accepted or to be the basis of a successful technology.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.